In Re Dunning Bros. Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a 73-year interval does not preclude 16 reopening
• holding that a 73-year interval does not preclude 16 reopening
• conflating the reopening 6 question with the merits of the underlying dispute creates a risk 7 that the adversary process will be inappropriately truncated or 8 preempted entirely
• “The desire of the [movant] railroad easement owner to own the fee under [its] right of way and levee triggered th[e] . . . case reopening.”
• ease filed in 1936 reopened in 2009 to administer undisclosed interest in real estate
• case reopened in 2009 to administer unscheduled property in case filed in 1936

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).